BMW M3 Forum (E90 E92)

BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Go Back   M3Post - BMW M3 Forum > M3 (E90 / E92 / E93) > General M3 Forum (E90 + E92 + E93)
 
INDustry distribution
Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      08-21-2007, 06:50 AM   #1
Just_me
Captain
 
Drives: RWD
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sweden

Posts: 604
iTrader: (0)

Dynotest (rototest) M3 V8

According to BMW Sweden they did a dynotest on the new M3. According to the dynotest maximum torque 365.5 nm for the new M3 V8.
They only mention torque, nothing about horsepower and I have nothing on paper so don't ask any questions.

A few more intresting results from rri.se:

M5 V10
Bmw: 507hp/520nm
Rototest: 465hp/475nm

http://www.rri.se/popup/performanceg...h&ChartsID=153
------

M3 E46
Bmw: 343hp/365nm
Rototest: 303hp/341nm

http://www.rri.se/popup/performanceg...p?ChartsID=576
-----

BMW 335i
Bmw: 306hp/400nm
Rototest: 286hp/385nm

http://www.rri.se/popup/performanceg...p?ChartsID=647
-----

www.rri.se

Test info: http://www.rri.se/index.php?DN=28
Just_me is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      08-21-2007, 06:54 AM   #2
southlight
Moderator / European Editor
 
southlight's Avatar
 
Drives: BMW
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Germany

Posts: 6,748
iTrader: (0)

Assuming that's the wheel torque, it's a great result. This means a drivetrain loss of only 8.5%, whereas a RS4 had a drivetrain loss as high as 12.5% in rototest. (http://www.rri.se/popup/performanceg...p?ChartsID=281)

Best regards, south
southlight is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      08-21-2007, 07:18 AM   #3
Donnie
New Member
 
Drives: E36 328i (alleged parents-X5d)
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: South Africa

Posts: 16
iTrader: (0)

Clearly it must be whp and wtq but BMW sweden are bungholes for not mentioning this..
Donnie is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      08-21-2007, 08:27 AM   #4
lucid
Major General
 
lucid's Avatar
 
Drives: E30 M3; Expedition
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: USA

Posts: 8,034
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by southlight View Post
Assuming that's the wheel torque, it's a great result. This means a drivetrain loss of only 8.5%, whereas a RS4 had a drivetrain loss as high as 12.5% in rototest. (http://www.rri.se/popup/performanceg...p?ChartsID=281)

Best regards, south
True, but remember that figure would be rpm dependent. The peak torque is at 3900 rpms. I wonder what happens at 8400 rpms. Bummer they didn't mention max hp at the wheels.
lucid is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      08-21-2007, 09:47 AM   #5
Garrett
Banned
 
Drives: 2004 330ci
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Mich

Posts: 1,356
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Just_me View Post
According to BMW Sweden they did a dynotest on the new M3. According to the dynotest maximum torque 365.5 nm for the new M3 V8.
They only mention torque, nothing about horsepower and I have nothing on paper so don't ask any questions.

A few more intresting results from rri.se:

M5 V10
Bmw: 507hp/520nm
Rototest: 465hp/475nm

http://www.rri.se/popup/performanceg...h&ChartsID=153
------


M3 E46
Bmw: 343hp/365nm
Rototest: 303hp/341nm

http://www.rri.se/popup/performanceg...p?ChartsID=576
-----

BMW 335i
Bmw: 306hp/400nm
Rototest: 286hp/385nm

http://www.rri.se/popup/performanceg...p?ChartsID=647
-----

www.rri.se

Test info: http://www.rri.se/index.php?DN=28
Dude!

Those are the dyno numbers, they still have to be translated to real world horsepower & torque. Almost anybody knows this...

Garrett is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      08-21-2007, 10:26 AM   #6
Just_me
Captain
 
Drives: RWD
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sweden

Posts: 604
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Garrett View Post
Dude!

Those are the dyno numbers, they still have to be translated to real world horsepower & torque. Almost anybody knows this...

yes Im posting dynonumbers. I also posted links and there you will find how the tests were done and results for many other different cars. So what are you saying?
Just_me is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      08-21-2007, 02:47 PM   #7
southlight
Moderator / European Editor
 
southlight's Avatar
 
Drives: BMW
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Germany

Posts: 6,748
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by lucid View Post
True, but remember that figure would be rpm dependent. The peak torque is at 3900 rpms. I wonder what happens at 8400 rpms. Bummer they didn't mention max hp at the wheels.
That's right, but since the the M3 torque loss is about the same like on the M5 I would guess that the wheel HP loss is also similar. M5 had peak wheel power of 472 PS at ~7700rpm. That makes 7% of drivetrain loss. M3 has ~407PS at 7700 according to the official graph. This would result in ~378PS at the wheels which is already higher then the RS4's peak power at the wheels (349PS at 7546rpm).

If that turns out to be true were talking about a (wheel)power-to-weight ratio which is at least 12% better then on RS4...

Best regards, south
southlight is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      08-21-2007, 03:08 PM   #8
lucid
Major General
 
lucid's Avatar
 
Drives: E30 M3; Expedition
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: USA

Posts: 8,034
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by southlight View Post
That's right, but since the the M3 torque loss is about the same like on the M5 I would guess that the wheel HP loss is also similar. M5 had peak wheel power of 472 PS at ~7700rpm. That makes 7% of drivetrain loss. M3 has ~407PS at 7700 according to the official graph. This would result in ~378PS at the wheels which is already higher then the RS4's peak power at the wheels (349PS at 7546rpm).

If that turns out to be true were talking about a (wheel)power-to-weight ratio which is at least 12% better then on RS4...

Best regards, south
Yeah, I saw that with the M5, and was surprised actually. Look at the E46 M3, and you'll see a different story that makes more sense: higher losses at higher rpms. I don't know how to explain the M5 hp numbers. Either way, the losses are much less than I would have thought, and that's a good thing.
lucid is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      08-21-2007, 03:17 PM   #9
ILC32
Lieutenant
 
ILC32's Avatar
 
Drives: 1993 Porsche RSA
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere

Posts: 580
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by lucid View Post
Yeah, I saw that with the M5, and was surprised actually. Look at the E46 M3, and you'll see a different story that makes more sense: higher losses at higher rpms. I don't know how to explain the M5 hp numbers. Either way, the losses are much less than I would have thought, and that's a good thing.
The explanation may be that the M5 is underrated. I never thought it was underrated, but it seems these results mean either very low drivetrain losses or an underrated motor.
ILC32 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      08-21-2007, 03:19 PM   #10
southlight
Moderator / European Editor
 
southlight's Avatar
 
Drives: BMW
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Germany

Posts: 6,748
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by lucid View Post
Yeah, I saw that with the M5, and was surprised actually. Look at the E46 M3, and you'll see a different story that makes more sense: higher losses at higher rpms. I don't know how to explain the M5 hp numbers. Either way, the losses are much less than I would have thought, and that's a good thing.
What shouldn't remain out of consideration is the fact that the M5 engines seem to have more power than stated. So maybe the drivetrain loss isn't that amazing low, but the engine's output higher than stated. So all this predictions are only valid if the M3 engines will also have higher output. But the rototest for the M3 engine suggests it that way...

Best regards, south
southlight is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      08-21-2007, 03:20 PM   #11
lucid
Major General
 
lucid's Avatar
 
Drives: E30 M3; Expedition
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: USA

Posts: 8,034
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ILC32 View Post
The explanation may be that the M5 is underrated. I never thought it was underrated, but it seems these results mean either very low drivetrain losses or an underrated motor.
Why would BMW selectively under report just the hp number, and not the tq number?
lucid is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      08-21-2007, 05:23 PM   #12
esquire
Colonel
 
esquire's Avatar
 
Drives: 2011.5 Dakar Yellow M3 Coupe
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Orange County, California

Posts: 2,801
iTrader: (0)

excellent point

Quote:
Originally Posted by southlight View Post
What shouldn't remain out of consideration is the fact that the M5 engines seem to have more power than stated. So maybe the drivetrain loss isn't that amazing low, but the engine's output higher than stated. So all this predictions are only valid if the M3 engines will also have higher output. But the rototest for the M3 engine suggests it that way...

Best regards, south

you can count on the fact that we're not looking at figures anywhere near 5-8% for parasitic transmission loss on the new M3. at this point it almost goes without saying that bmw understates their engine output. the corollary is that understated engine output yields understated drivertrain loss figures.


- esquire
__________________

[ESS VT2-625] [Akrapovic Evolution Exhaust] [KW Clubsports] [OSS Angel Eyes] [Revinora r-CRT Lip]
[Vorsteiner Boot] [Challenge Race Diffuser] [See the Build Thread HERE]
esquire is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      08-21-2007, 05:34 PM   #13
lucid
Major General
 
lucid's Avatar
 
Drives: E30 M3; Expedition
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: USA

Posts: 8,034
iTrader: (0)

If I were a car mag editor after sensational news, I'd find a totaled M5 with engine intact, go through the trouble of dyno testing that, uncover the real crank numbers, and put that on the cover. Oh, then, I would drop the engine into my 3-series coupe.
lucid is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      08-21-2007, 05:49 PM   #14
swamp2
Lieutenant General
 
swamp2's Avatar
 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

Posts: 10,201
iTrader: (1)

Thoughts

A few things are clear from these numbers. But much is unclear as well. The table below ASSSUMES we see a similar hp loss in the E92 M3 compared to the E60 M5.
  • Torque and power losses are definitely rpm dependent and software like CarTest captures this effect. Losses are predicted as linear across a given rpm range from a minimum number to a maximum. The loss numbers I list in the table are min/max numbers across in a max acceleration run in 2nd gear.
  • The 335i is clearly under-rated. We all know this. The drivetrain loss at peak hp and peak torque loss is just too low. However, it only takes a stated crank hp number of 312 hp to get to the M5 drivetrain loss number.
  • The massive losses of the RS4 AWD system on both tq and hp is clear
  • The hp losses for the E46 M3 seem too high. This car has performance figures that hint at a bit of under-rating as well but the transmission losses point to an over-rating
  • CarTest software NAILS the 0-60, 1/4 mi time and trap speed perfectly for the RS4 (test ref.) CT/actual 4.6/4.6, 13.2/13.2, 104/104. Note the great agreement between average CT predicted hp loss and measured peak loss. Anyway you look at the losses CT matches better on the RS4 than any of the BMWs.
  • CarTest generally uder-predicts performance for E46 M3, E60 M5 and 335i but still does quite well for the E92 M3 despite the disparity in CT losses vs. measured losses
I have nor included any loss predictions for the 335i from CarTest as becuase mentioned in a previous post no matter how much I tweak hp and tq numbers I can't get a good simulation vs. actual from CarTest. The known under-rating doesn't help...
Attached Images
 
swamp2 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      08-22-2007, 03:05 AM   #15
swamp2
Lieutenant General
 
swamp2's Avatar
 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

Posts: 10,201
iTrader: (1)

Dead

Man, I really killed this thread didn't I
swamp2 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      08-22-2007, 03:15 AM   #16
southlight
Moderator / European Editor
 
southlight's Avatar
 
Drives: BMW
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Germany

Posts: 6,748
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
A few things are clear from these numbers. But much is unclear as well. The table below ASSSUMES we see a similar hp loss in the E92 M3 compared to the E60 M5.
  • Torque and power losses are definitely rpm dependent and software like CarTest captures this effect. Losses are predicted as linear across a given rpm range from a minimum number to a maximum. The loss numbers I list in the table are min/max numbers across in a max acceleration run in 2nd gear.
  • The 335i is clearly under-rated. We all know this. The drivetrain loss at peak hp and peak torque loss is just too low. However, it only takes a stated crank hp number of 312 hp to get to the M5 drivetrain loss number.
  • The massive losses of the RS4 AWD system on both tq and hp is clear
  • The hp losses for the E46 M3 seem too high. This car has performance figures that hint at a bit of under-rating as well but the transmission losses point to an over-rating
  • CarTest software NAILS the 0-60, 1/4 mi time and trap speed perfectly for the RS4 (test ref.) CT/actual 4.6/4.6, 13.2/13.2, 104/104. Note the great agreement between average CT predicted hp loss and measured peak loss. Anyway you look at the losses CT matches better on the RS4 than any of the BMWs.
  • CarTest generally uder-predicts performance for E46 M3, E60 M5 and 335i but still does quite well for the E92 M3 despite the disparity in CT losses vs. measured losses
I have nor included any loss predictions for the 335i from CarTest as becuase mentioned in a previous post no matter how much I tweak hp and tq numbers I can't get a good simulation vs. actual from CarTest. The known under-rating doesn't help...
  • The E46 M3 is indeed said to be over-rated. Really good performance numbers did only have the very early cars. The later model years weren't that quick...
  • We can't say how good the predictions for E92 M3 are, since there aren't real performance tests out yet.
BTW: The drivetrain loss for the M5 was only 7% referring wheel power. That would result in 390 PS at the wheels for M3. But the M3 reaches it's peak power at higher revvs than the M5, so the drivetrain loss should be also higher at 8300rpm.

Best regards, south
southlight is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      08-22-2007, 12:19 PM   #17
swamp2
Lieutenant General
 
swamp2's Avatar
 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

Posts: 10,201
iTrader: (1)

Various

Quote:
Originally Posted by southlight View Post
  • The E46 M3 is indeed said to be over-rated. Really good performance numbers did only have the very early cars. The later model years weren't that quick...
  • We can't say how good the predictions for E92 M3 are, since there aren't real performance tests out yet.
BTW: The drivetrain loss for the M5 was only 7% referring wheel power. That would result in 390 PS at the wheels for M3. But the M3 reaches it's peak power at higher revvs than the M5, so the drivetrain loss should be also higher at 8300rpm.

Best regards, south
-Wait the E46 M3 has more or less power than stated by BMW?? Are you saying that early (or press models) got great performance numbers by being not in the same state of tune as production cars??
-We do have a lot of performance figures for the M3. 0-60 4.4 (yes poor road surface), 1/4 mi in 12.9@111, 0-200km/hr, etc., etc.
-Thanks for catching the typo on M5 losses, spreadsheet updated and attached.
Attached Images
 
swamp2 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      08-22-2007, 01:33 PM   #18
sdiver68
Expert Road Racer
 
Drives: 07 335i e90, 09 335i e93
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: St. Louis, MO

Posts: 1,330
iTrader: (3)



(BMW advertised crank HP - Tested Wheel HP)/ BMW advertised crank HP *100 = % drivetrain loss?

sdiver68 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      08-22-2007, 02:21 PM   #19
southlight
Moderator / European Editor
 
southlight's Avatar
 
Drives: BMW
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Germany

Posts: 6,748
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
-Wait the E46 M3 has more or less power than stated by BMW?? Are you saying that early (or press models) got great performance numbers by being not in the same state of tune as production cars??
-We do have a lot of performance figures for the M3. 0-60 4.4 (yes poor road surface), 1/4 mi in 12.9@111, 0-200km/hr, etc., etc.
Can't tell for sure that it has less power than stated. But the E46 didn't get faster in the german tests, but "every" year a little slower. The car also had the conversion from EU3 emission standard to EU4 during it's lifecycle, which is surely not conducive to it's performance...
But also if it had just the stated power, there would be more "drivetrain loss" compared to an underrated engine...

Quote:
Originally Posted by sdiver68 View Post


(BMW advertised crank HP - Tested Wheel HP)/ BMW advertised crank HP *100 = % drivetrain loss?

Quote:
Originally Posted by southlight View Post
What shouldn't remain out of consideration is the fact that the M5 engines seem to have more power than stated. So maybe the drivetrain loss isn't that amazing low, but the engine's output higher than stated. So all this predictions are only valid if the M3 engines will also have higher output. But the rototest for the M3 engine suggests it that way...

Best regards, south


Best regards, south
southlight is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      08-22-2007, 05:08 PM   #20
bruce.augenstein@comcast.
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Drives: Legacy GT - 13.704@99.39
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Manheim, PA

Posts: 1,902
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
...[*]CarTest software NAILS the 0-60, 1/4 mi time and trap speed perfectly for the RS4 (test ref.) CT/actual 4.6/4.6, 13.2/13.2, 104/104. Note the great agreement between average CT predicted hp loss and measured peak loss. Anyway you look at the losses CT matches better on the RS4 than any of the BMWs.
Swamp, how would CT line up with an RS4 that went 12.9 @ 109.7, with a vehicle weight of 4110 pounds with driver?

This is from a Road and Track test last year, and those numbers more closely match what I have observed at the track. That C & D test was the slowest I've seen by far, and they mentioned an unavoidable bog at launch due to very good traction and hot weather.

Thanks,

Bruce

Last edited by bruce.augenstein@comcast.; 08-22-2007 at 05:09 PM. Reason: spelling
bruce.augenstein@comcast. is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      08-22-2007, 05:54 PM   #21
Garrett
Banned
 
Drives: 2004 330ci
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Mich

Posts: 1,356
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by lucid View Post
If I were a car mag editor after sensational news, I'd find a totaled M5 with engine intact, go through the trouble of dyno testing that, uncover the real crank numbers, and put that on the cover. Oh, then, I would drop the engine into my 3-series coupe.
Hartge already did that with the M5. If I remember correctly they saw 518hp at the crank.
Garrett is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      08-22-2007, 06:00 PM   #22
Garrett
Banned
 
Drives: 2004 330ci
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Mich

Posts: 1,356
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
-Wait the E46 M3 has more or less power than stated by BMW?? Are you saying that early (or press models) got great performance numbers by being not in the same state of tune as production cars??
-We do have a lot of performance figures for the M3. 0-60 4.4 (yes poor road surface), 1/4 mi in 12.9@111, 0-200km/hr, etc., etc.
-Thanks for catching the typo on M5 losses, spreadsheet updated and attached.
Where are you getting those dyno numbers for the e93 M3 ..? (software?)
Garrett is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:15 PM.




m3post
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST